Speeches

Well, I only want to remind you that I accepted the blue cards during this debate. First of all, one per intervention. It was the same, because of two elements: first of all, because this debate deserves it; and secondly, because we have enough time to do it properly. It was not the same during the morning – just to be clear on that. We are now continuing with our debate.

The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the Roadmap for Women's Rights (2025/2592(RSP)). The first speaker, speaking on behalf of the Council, will be Mr Szłapka, Poland's Minister for European Union Affairs.

Mr President, today we are talking about the impact that agreements between conservatives and the far right are having on Europe. Agreements that we did not invent ourselves here, which today are happening in many capitals. Some agreements that we sometimes see, unfortunately, in this House and that, unfortunately, we cannot be sure that in the future we will not see them in Berlin either. Agreements that not only bring anti-science to European policies, but also directly affect our democratic principles and our coexistence and put our economy at risk. Why? Because with these agreements we put at risk the necessary investments to put European innovation into operation, because we put at risk our great economic tool, which is the single market, and because we put at risk the great ecological transformations that are underway. Look, betting on fossil fuels is betting on the past. The industrial hegemony of Europe's future is at stake in these agreements. Today's efforts will be the competitiveness of the future and these agreements are the agreements that can lead us to the losses of the future and, undoubtedly, to the social unrest of the future. You have to choose between the summit we saw in Madrid this weekend or the Paris Summit - past or future - and it is in your hands.

The next item is the debate on the basis of the Commission statement on the need to address acute labour shortages and ensure quality jobs in the healthcare sector (2025/2529(RSP)).

The Minutes of yesterday's sitting and the texts adopted therein are available. Does anyone wish to intervene in this regard? The Minutes were adopted.

The next session will take place tomorrow, Tuesday 11 February 2025, at 9 a.m. The agenda has been published and is available on the European Parliament's website.

The next item on the agenda is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance. For the one-minute speeches, I invite you to take the floor from your seat.

The next item is the debate on Parliament's statements on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the European Union should contribute to the resolution of the humanitarian crisis around people missing in wars and conflicts (2025/2550(RSP)).

Mr President, today the European Parliament wants to reaffirm once again its commitment to democracy in Venezuela, especially in a country where it has been attacked and violated in recent years, and to express clearly and emphatically that, after elections that sought to legitimise an authoritarian regime, what ended up happening is massive support - as all the information we have today indicates - for the opposition at the polls. And what do we Europeans want? We want a democratic transition in a country that has to regain the strength of the popular will. And if we agree on all this, my question is: Why is it so difficult to reach agreements in this house about Venezuela? Why do the positions that some here are defending differ so much and what is being done in the Foreign Affairs Council or in the European Council, which is also represented by all the political forces? And why are we not capable not only of that, but also instrumentalize Venezuela to attack a European government? So let's think about Venezuela and its democracy and let's stop the partisan use of Venezuela's noble cause, with its respect and its strength.

The next item is the debate on the basis of statements by the Council and the Commission on the need to detect and combat acts of sabotage by the Russian clandestine fleet that damage critical underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea (2025/2517(RSP)).

We will move to the catch‑the‑eye. We have a long list of speakers and we don't have enough time. And what we are going to do is take one speaker per group, respecting the order of the people asking for this catch‑the‑eye, and also taking into account all the blue cards that we had during this debate – the people that have been intervening.

Mr President, Donald Trump’s return to the White House not only jeopardises our historic transatlantic relations – to which we must respond calmly, constructively, but firmly at the same time – but, above all, is the symptom of the collapse of the global consensuses, safeguards and institutions that have guided the world since 1945; a world that will no longer be guided by the force of law, but by the law of force, where Europe must learn to defend its interests whenever necessary and where we will have to be able to take the reins of our destiny. Act where? Acting on our security, taking care of it, and that implies spending on defense; act in our economy, to protect it, boosting our industry, our innovation and deepening the Single Market; and act in the defense of our democracy, especially the interference that can come from outside, foreign, technological oligarchs. The time to act is now, with unity and ambition. Otherwise, we will be driven to irrelevance and subordination.

Mr President, today we are speaking in this Parliament to remind ourselves that time is up, that the increase in the Earth's temperature is already 1.5 degrees - which was the goal we had set ourselves as an international community - and that it is doing so after ten years of breaking records year after year. And it does, in addition, when we have not yet reached the peak of global emissions, so the situation will probably continue to worsen. I remember some facts: They reminded us, over the last few days, that 50% of economic growth for the next 20 years is at risk from climate change, and the Court of Auditors told us that we have spent 26 billion on extreme weather events in the last decade in Europe and that we have to prepare so that, if the temperature increase goes from 1.5 to 3 degrees in this band, it can be between 42 billion and 175 billion. Not only life – ecosystems – but also our economy is at stake. What to do about this? First of all, we adapt. And secondly, to have ambitious targets for 2040 - which we will now discuss - and to coordinate with the world at the next COP in Belém.

Mr President, Vice-President Ribera, this is a necessary debate that we deserve, which this House deserves, on the economic impact of the European Green Deal, but, precisely because it is important, it deserves to be an intellectually honest debate. First of all, do our economic problems in Europe in recent years have to do with green regulation or do they just have to do with our dependence on fossil fuels, with an energy crisis that caused gas prices to escalate abruptly and with the end of a model that will not return, which is an industrial model based on easy and cheap gas from Russia? In fact, the countries that have deployed renewable energies the fastest, as is the case in Spain, are the ones that today have the best macroeconomic data. Secondly, it is a debate that we need to be consistent and in which those of us who have made this regulation take charge. Everyone is using the European Green Deal as a growth strategy, and we all do what we know how to do: China uses the state; The United States uses the market by doping it, and in Europe we are regulating it, a regulation that has to be smart, predictable, effective ... and that is not enough. And that's what we need to discuss: whereas it needs investments and compensation mechanisms, with industrial policy for this mandate; This should be the debate we deserve.

The next item is the topical debate, governed by Rule 169 of the Rules of Procedure, on restoring the Union's competitive advantage: the need for an impact assessment on Green Deal policies. I inform the Honourable Members that neither the catch-the-eye procedure nor the ‘blue card’ procedure will apply to this debate. I give the floor for four minutes to Nicola Procaccini, representative of the political group that has proposed the item, to start the debate.

The next vote is on the report by Mr Joński on the EC-Pacific States Interim Partnership Agreement: accession of Tuvalu (see minutes, item 10.8).